[CWG-Stewardship] Comments on Draft Agreement

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Jonathan,

Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply.

I can only reply to your kind message exactly as I replied to Chuke.

An individual categorically objecting me  and repeatedly referred to a
certain country ' law and   certain country  court s and referred to past
practices of that country and / or  those  courts of that country

This is not acceptable

I do not know what we are doing here at all in this process.

Let him brings whatever he decides as corresponding to past practices
?????? and Court opinion ????

Why we ask the people to comment when no comment is accepted?
We have been doing this works always with rush and rush.

We have been ignoring comments of participants .My comments were openly and
publicly ignored and rejected during several CWG meetings in the name of
time constrains.

It seems that some people  wish to do the work among /between themselves in
a private manner and no one else is allowed to talk .If he talks he is told
 that his comments does not comply with past practice nor  is it compatible
with decision , opinion or order of certain courts

Everything seems to  purely formalistic

This is not an open, democratic, transparent, fair button-up
multistakeholder approach.

It is a dictated approach via past practices and court opinion, practices
of some particular country style

When i am told that the draft shall be considered as final and definitive
even if it is being sent for comments there is no opportunity at all to
make any  farther comments ,what so ever, because our top high qualify man
does speak for every body and no comments is accepted  is it not  non
democratic ?

With his sharp criticism he pushed me  from commenting  by imposing his
interoperation  and his views  of legal text on me.

I still does not understand what is the legal meaning of “collectively and
unanimously " as the term " unanimously also includes collectively"

Nor I am in agreement with «breaching repeatedly" as breaching itself  is
breaching even if not repeated it is breaching and contravene the agreement

I also do not agree with the term  “jointly and severally”.

I also disagree saying X will do an action as «will is a deterministic verb
and no one could guarantee that anyone else will something. The proper term
is shall (mandatory) or should (optional / quasi mandatory)

There are many. Other parts that I have commented on

What you all saying in the name of «time constrain" that I must ignore all
this and blindly agree with what you are dictating me

You have decided to reject my comments

You  then need to acknowledge that all comments that I have  made are valid
but due to time constrains you are not able to take them into account nor
discuss and analyses them

Best Regards

Kavouss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160809/f437b4ca/attachment.html>